Boxer wants far more wilderness / She introduces bill to add 2.5 million acres in California

Glen Martin, Chronicle Environment Writer

Published 4:00 am, Saturday, May 11, 2002

Image 1of/2

Caption

Close

Image 1 of 2

THIS IS A HANDOUT IMAGE. PLEASE VERIFY RIGHTS. Sugarloaf is part of the 2.5 million acres that would be protected as federal wilderness by legislation introduced by Sen Barbgara Boxer. HANDOUT.

THIS IS A HANDOUT IMAGE. PLEASE VERIFY RIGHTS. Sugarloaf is part of the 2.5 million acres that would be protected as federal wilderness by legislation introduced by Sen Barbgara Boxer. HANDOUT.

Image 2 of 2

THIS IS A HANDOUT IMAGE. PLEASE VERIFY RIGHTS. Cache Creek is one of two additonal rivers that would be studied for possible wild and scenic status. HANDOUT.

THIS IS A HANDOUT IMAGE. PLEASE VERIFY RIGHTS. Cache Creek is one of two additonal rivers that would be studied for possible wild and scenic status. HANDOUT.

Boxer wants far more wilderness / She introduces bill to add 2.5 million acres in California

1 / 2

Back to Gallery

In the most ambitious attempt to expand California's protected lands in eight years, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., has introduced legislation that would designate 2.5 million acres of the state's forests, deserts and river canyons as federal wilderness.

But rapid passage of the legislation appears unlikely, given that Republicans dominate the House of Representatives -- and they generally oppose additional wilderness designations.

Under Boxer's bill, 77 areas from Mexico to Oregon would receive wilderness designation, while portions of 22 rivers would be protected under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

Two additional rivers -- Cache Creek and the East Fork of the Carson River - - would be studied for possible wild or scenic status.

Boxer's bill would dramatically increase the amount of California land permanently protected from development and motor vehicles. Under most circumstances, residential and resort development, oil drilling, logging, grazing, mining and off-road vehicles are prohibited in federal wilderness areas.

Passage would mark the most significant increase in state wilderness lands since the California Desert Protection Act was adopted in 1994. The desert act preserved about 7 million acres of land in Southern California.

The bill would quash many of the conservation battles now brewing in the state in the favor of environmentalists, including a U.S. Forest Service proposal to drill for oil in the Los Padres National Forest in Central California.

"It doesn't take much to destroy the natural beauty and wonder of these places," Boxer said. "These lands are our responsibility -- we must make sure future generations can see them as they were when people first ventured on them."

"California has a long and rich tradition of wilderness preservation," said Watson. "Wilderness and free-flowing rivers help define the quality of life here. Congress has passed more wilderness legislation affecting California than any other state, and this bill will continue in that tradition."

The reaction generally was negative from groups favoring multiple uses of federal wildlands, including logging, mining and off-road vehicle touring.

"Moreover, we don't believe additional wilderness will be acceptable to the people living and working in the areas where the designations will occur -- mainly because it prevents people from accessing those areas," he said.

Boxer said the bill would not stop economic development in and around the state's wildlands.

"Tourism is California's No. 1 industry," she said during a media briefing. "People will be so excited to see land that looks pretty much the way it looked when it was created."

Positions on the bill in the Senate and House of Representatives are firmly divided along party lines.

"None of my Republican colleagues in Congress has endorsed the (House) bills, but that doesn't mean they won't work with us," said Boxer. "(Passage) will probably be bit by bit, year by year. It took 14 years for the desert protection act to pass."

Thompson, the companion bill co-sponsor, said the legislation probably won't make it through the House this year, "though it could squeeze through as part of a negotiation at the end of the session.

"The main thing is, we're going to keep working on it. My district has most of the salmon habitat in the state, and salmon are extremely important to my constituents. To a large degree, the quality of the wilderness surrounding the salmon streams reflects the size of the salmon run."

"Any wilderness bill on the House side has to go through the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands," said Brian Kennedy, press secretary for Rep. George Radanovich, R-Fresno.

"My boss is the chairman of that subcommittee," said Kennedy, "and he will consider Sen. Boxer's wilderness bill when she introduces legislation to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Even then, I wouldn't give it a hundred-to-one shot of making it through the subcommittee. In other words, it doesn't have much of a shot. Congressman Radanovich is enthusiastically opposed -- he considers it an egregious imposition on multiple uses, industries and the taxpayers who pay for the maintenance of these lands."

Latest from the SFGATE homepage:

Click below for the top news from around the Bay Area and beyond. Sign up for our newsletters to be the first to learn about breaking news and more. Go to 'Sign In' and 'Manage Profile' at the top of the page.